Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[PRmerger]

Let’s say that a historian agreed that, generally speaking, the Bible is reliable as a historical document. The first shortcoming I see is that historical reliability can never be measured in terms of *100% reliable." Any of the following things can come into play:

—a fault of memory
–confusion on the part of the author relating the story (getting his facts mixed up); or, in fact, a failure to fully grasp the concepts
–a “filling in the gaps” of specific details that the author may not recollect with exactitude, for the sake of not creating a “patchy” story

Fair enough.

I would think, though, that you would apply this paradigm to every single historical document/event/text.

However, I have never seen any skeptic/doubter/atheist ever apply this paradigm equally to any secular historical document.

For some reason this extreme vigilance and skepticism is applied to the Bible, while a general lethargy regarding, say, the Punic wars, is applied.

 

[PRmerger]

100.0% accurate, though theoretically possible, is not particularly likely; it can’t be assumed, whether it be for the Bible, or Rousseau’s Confessions (the story of his life), or an account of Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul.

I don’t believe anyone has been arguing for its 100% accuracy.

This is not a slam dunk, either. Let’s take that line in Matthew – “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of heaven will not prevail against it.” If we agree that the Bible is “generally reliable, historically” we still do not know with 100% certainty that this particular line was actually spoken by Christ. It could very well have been, but it would be more certain if this line appeared in all 4 gospels, or 3 of the 4, or even 2 of them. As it is, it only appears in one.

Again, I hope you apply this to any other historical event.

What events of ancient history do you have in which there are 4 narratives, and you doubt the veracity of one of these events due to the fact that the other 3 do not mention it?

 

[mek42]

Fair enough.

I would think, though, that you would apply this paradigm to every single historical document/event/text.

However, I have never seen any skeptic/doubter/atheist ever apply this paradigm equally to any secular historical document.

For some reason this extreme vigilance and skepticism is applied to the Bible, while a general lethargy regarding, say, the Punic wars, is applied.

Given that with plain text I may be missing some sarcasm, one must admit that accounts of the Punic wars is seldom used as a basis from which to exert political will on others.

 

[PJM]

=NowHereThis;10934592]Unitarian Universalism is a diverse movement, so I can’t speak for everyone in it. But I will do my best to answer any questions you may have about Unitarian Universalism (as I see it).

So my friend,

Why are YOU a Universalist rather than a Catholic?

 

[PRmerger]

Given that with plain text I may be missing some sarcasm, one must admit that accounts of the Punic wars is seldom used as a basis from which to exert political will on others.

So it’s not really the fact that the history is ancient, and therefore ultimately unprovable that makes the Bible doubtful.

It’s the fact it deals with things of a religious nature that makes one have some peculiar sort of higher standard.

I find that position untenable.

Either you hold the position: everything that happened in history is doubtful because we don’t have any first person witnesses around to testify to it.

OR

We apply the same degree of skepticism to both religious and secular events in history.

The latter sounds really like the judicious way to look at things, don’t you think?

 

[Tomdstone]

It seems that you are moving goalposts now.

You original statement was that Catholics were prohibited from reading the Bible.

These are your words, emphasis mine:

Discouraged and prohibited are as different concepts as dieting and starvation are different concepts.

I thought that the Council of Toulouse in 1229 prohibited the reading of the Bible for lay people. However, you could read the psalter or the breviary.

books.google.com/books?id=Bh9d6euKvS4C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=COUNCIL+OF+TOULOUSE±+1229+A.D.+Bible&source=bl&ots=jflpd3wDAF&sig=y8pu6fO1cvZLCq2f5ShmtQN8tNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gpToUdbTJsSLiAKG34DYBA&ved=0CGsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=COUNCIL%20OF%20TOULOUSE%20-%201229%20A.D.%20Bible&f=false

 

[PRmerger]

Where I think Protestants can use the spiral argument is that they can seize upon the fact that it doesn’t take the church to argue for the historical reliability of the gospels. They can do that independently of the authority of any Church. Further, all they have to do then is interpret that line about “Peter and the rock” differently than the Catholics do.

But here’s where you stump them, Portofino:

You ask them, if you don’t have the Church, how do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired? How do you know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

I thought that the Council of Toulouse in 1229 prohibited the reading of the Bible for lay people. However, you could read the psalter or the breviary.

books.google.com/books?id=Bh9d6euKvS4C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=COUNCIL+OF+TOULOUSE±+1229+A.D.+Bible&source=bl&ots=jflpd3wDAF&sig=y8pu6fO1cvZLCq2f5ShmtQN8tNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gpToUdbTJsSLiAKG34DYBA&ved=0CGsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=COUNCIL%20OF%20TOULOUSE%20-%201229%20A.D.%20Bible&f=false

The Church forbade the reading of a deliberately mistranslated edition of the Bible, Tombdstone.

In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation.source

 

[nmgauss]

It seems that you are moving goalposts now.

You original statement was that Catholics were prohibited from reading the Bible.

These are your words, emphasis mine:

Discouraged and prohibited are as different concepts as dieting and starvation are different concepts.

Notice the statement in my reference that in 1943, the Pope decreed that Catholics would be allowed to read the Bible.

 

[mek42]

So it’s not really the fact that the history is ancient, and therefore ultimately unprovable that makes the Bible doubtful.

It’s the fact it deals with things of a religious nature that makes one have some peculiar sort of higher standard.

I find that position untenable.

Either you hold the position: everything that happened in history is doubtful because we don’t have any first person witnesses around to testify to it.

OR

We apply the same degree of skepticism to both religious and secular events in history.

The latter sounds really like the judicious way to look at things, don’t you think?

I do hear what you are saying, but let ask a question. Somethings from history, ancient or yesterday’s newspaper, are so trivial that there is no consequence if there is error. Can we agree here, call this point one if it is a pain for you to multi quote.

However, other elements of history are of vital importance and absolutely need to be correct. Stretching the word history here, we can perhaps count operational level military intelligence in this category, even though the necessary correctness is so seldom attained. Calling this point one B.

Assuming you agree so far, I would ascribe texts related to morality and the disposition of one’s soul in that critically important category, would you agree with this point two?

Then, we, as individuals and as societies, have finite resources with which to explore historical documents, so it is only right that the most resources be applied to the critical texts, let’s call this conclusion three.

 

[bzkoss236]

Notice the statement in my reference that in 1943, the Pope decreed that Catholics would be allowed to read the Bible.

Saying ‘allowed’ has no effect on the difference between ‘discouraged’ and ‘prohibited’. You can be discouraged (meaning, not prohibited, but not encouraged either) from doing something and then be allowed to do it.

 

[mek42]

Saying ‘allowed’ has no effect on the difference between ‘discouraged’ and ‘prohibited’. You can be discouraged (meaning, not prohibited, but not encouraged either) from doing something and then be allowed to do it.

I disagree with your definition of discouraged. Discouraged is should not, where prohibited is shall not.

Now, those of you quibbling between discouraged and prohibited, in your heart of hearts, if your priest told that you should not do something, would you run out of the church and go do it immediately or would you consider things, probably not doing it?

I think most of us have been in a situation where a superior has made a suggestion. While not technically orders, we do obey these suggestions the majority of the time, do we not? Therefore discouraged means de facto prohibited for the majority of those discouraged.

 

[nmgauss]

Interesting, or, spoken language was more important when literacy was scarce. Thus one’s word carried much more weight then, than as we know, now everyone lies to get ahead, but only the real dense put their lies into writing, say in fibbing a resume.

I actually find world history of early Christianity to be quite different than abstact or complicated. The letters in the Bible’s NT weren’t written to “those who can read this letter” they were written to a whole people regardless of ability to read.

The teachings themselves from Jesus himself are straightforward and clear. It’s the person who chooses to make them complicated.

The ethical teachings of Jesus are basic and can be easily understood. But when the idea of the Trinity is considered, illiterates are more likely to accept the Church dogma uncritically, and participate in the Eucharist and the Hail Mary’s. However, intellectuals such as Marcion, Arian, Athanasius, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius start tossing around alternate interpretations of the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, this can be so confusing as to leave the illiterates befuddled.

 

[mek42]

The ethical teachings of Jesus are basic and can be easily understood. But when the idea of the Trinity is considered, illiterates are more likely to accept the Church dogma uncritically, and participate in the Eucharist and the Hail Mary’s. However, intellectuals such as Marcion, Arian, Athanasius, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius start tossing around alternate interpretations of the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, this can be so confusing as to leave the illiterates befuddled.

I’m guilty of this quite often too, but I really think that we do people a disservice when we refer to them as the masses, etc. Formal education does not imply intelligence.

 

[PRmerger]

Notice the statement in my reference that in 1943, the Pope decreed that Catholics would be allowed to read the Bible.

That is simply a clarification: yes, Catholics may read the Bible.

There has never been any teaching from the Magisterium in which Catholics were forbidden to read the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree with your definition of discouraged. Discouraged is should not, where prohibited is shall not.

Now, those of you quibbling between discouraged and prohibited, in your heart of hearts, if your priest told that you should not do something, would you run out of the church and go do it immediately or would you consider things, probably not doing it?

I think most of us have been in a situation where a superior has made a suggestion. While not technically orders, we do obey these suggestions the majority of the time, do we not? Therefore discouraged means de facto prohibited for the majority of those discouraged.

I think the best analogy is what I have already posted:

the difference between dieting and starvation.

We may be encouraged to diet for some periods. We are never encouraged to starve ourselves.

Similarly, we may be be encouraged to diet from the Scriptures for some periods (that is, discouraged from reading them) but we were never encouraged to starve from the Scriptures (that is, forbidden to read them.)

 

[PRmerger]

The ethical teachings of Jesus are basic and can be easily understood. But when the idea of the Trinity is considered, illiterates are more likely to accept the Church dogma uncritically, and participate in the Eucharist and the Hail Mary’s. However, intellectuals such as Marcion, Arian, Athanasius, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius start tossing around alternate interpretations of the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, this can be so confusing as to leave the illiterates befuddled.

Yeah. It just so happened that these “intellectuals” promoted a lot of heretical teachings–most of which you ought to be rejecting as well. (Unless you are a JW, ngnauss? Do you believe that Arius (not Arian, BTW) got it right in denying the divinity of Christ?)

 

[nmgauss]

That is simply a clarification: yes, Catholics may read the Bible.

There has never been any teaching from the Magisterium in which Catholics were forbidden to read the Scriptures.

David Carlin has written the following on Bible reading by Catholics:

Of course, there is an old tradition among lay Catholics of not reading the Bible. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, this non-reading was a natural byproduct of the fact that the vast majority of lay Catholics were illiterate. Besides, such Bibles as were available were written in Latin, not the vernacular languages. And then, once the Reformation took place, Bible-reading took on the color of being a distinctively Protestant thing, therefore something faithful Catholics should avoid. Protestants, after all, appealed to the authority of the Bible to challenge the authority of the pope and the bishops, and when they read the Bible they came to certain theological conclusions that conflicted with Catholic doctrine. Reading the Bible was dangerous for Catholics.

In the long period from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, a period of approximately four centuries, the Catholic Church adopted a highly defensive mode of being. There were two great intellectual dangers to the Faith – first the Protestant danger and then the secularist danger that stemmed from the Enlightenment. The Index of Prohibited Books was created to defend Catholics against these dangers. Of course, it was impossible to put the Bible on the Index, since the Bible, according to Catholic teaching, was the inspired Word of God. But if the Bible couldn’t be banned, at least Catholics could be effectively discouraged from reading it. There were several ways of doing this:
◦A strong emphasis on Natural Religion had the effect of depreciating the value of Revelation generally.
◦A strong emphasis on Tradition as a second source of Divine Revelation had the effect of depreciating the value of the Bible.
◦Secondhand narrations of biblical stories, instead of moving Catholics to consult the original sources (the Bible itself), more often gave them the impression that it was not necessary to examine the Bible.
◦Catholics were told that they must not read Protestant translations of the Bible (e.g., the Authorized Version); if they insisted on reading the Bible, they must read properly annotated Catholic translations.◦Some gentle ridicule directed at the Biblicism of our “separated brethren” taught Catholics to shy away from the Bible.◦In general, Catholics were seldom seriously encouraged by their priests and nuns to search the Scriptures.
All this changed, officially at least, at Vatican II, which dropped the Church’s 400-year-old “defensive mode of being.” Lay Catholics were now at long last given the green light to read the Bible; indeed, they were encouraged to read it. Yet today, nearly a half-century later, 44 percent of American Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, and only 7 percent read it on a daily basis. How can this be?
catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html

 

[PRmerger]

I do hear what you are saying, but let ask a question. Somethings from history, ancient or yesterday’s newspaper, are so trivial that there is no consequence if there is error. Can we agree here, call this point one if it is a pain for you to multi quote.

However, other elements of history are of vital importance and absolutely need to be correct. Stretching the word history here, we can perhaps count operational level military intelligence in this category, even though the necessary correctness is so seldom attained. Calling this point one B.

Assuming you agree so far, I would ascribe texts related to morality and the disposition of one’s soul in that critically important category, would you agree with this point two?

Then, we, as individuals and as societies, have finite resources with which to explore historical documents, so it is only right that the most resources be applied to the critical texts, let’s call this conclusion three.

There are a multitude of ancient historical events of great import that no one applies the same level of skepticism that they do to the events of Christianity.

Again, it is curious that the objection to Christian history’s reliability starts out as, “We don’t have any eye witness accounts of these events” and then transitions to, “Well, it’s because Christianity makes such stupendous claims that we need to doubt them.”

Pick one. And then we can chat.

 

[PRmerger]

David Carlin has written the following on Bible reading by Catholics:

Of course, there is an old tradition among lay Catholics of not reading the Bible. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, this non-reading was a natural byproduct of the fact that the vast majority of lay Catholics were illiterate. Besides, such Bibles as were available were written in Latin, not the vernacular languages. And then, once the Reformation took place, Bible-reading took on the color of being a distinctively Protestant thing, therefore something faithful Catholics should avoid. Protestants, after all, appealed to the authority of the Bible to challenge the authority of the pope and the bishops, and when they read the Bible they came to certain theological conclusions that conflicted with Catholic doctrine. Reading the Bible was dangerous for Catholics.

In the long period from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, a period of approximately four centuries, the Catholic Church adopted a highly defensive mode of being. There were two great intellectual dangers to the Faith – first the Protestant danger and then the secularist danger that stemmed from the Enlightenment. The Index of Prohibited Books was created to defend Catholics against these dangers. Of course, it was impossible to put the Bible on the Index, since the Bible, according to Catholic teaching, was the inspired Word of God. But if the Bible couldn’t be banned, at least Catholics could be effectively discouraged from reading it. There were several ways of doing this:
◦A strong emphasis on Natural Religion had the effect of depreciating the value of Revelation generally.
◦A strong emphasis on Tradition as a second source of Divine Revelation had the effect of depreciating the value of the Bible.
◦Secondhand narrations of biblical stories, instead of moving Catholics to consult the original sources (the Bible itself), more often gave them the impression that it was not necessary to examine the Bible.
◦Catholics were told that they must not read Protestant translations of the Bible (e.g., the Authorized Version); if they insisted on reading the Bible, they must read properly annotated Catholic translations.◦Some gentle ridicule directed at the Biblicism of our “separated brethren” taught Catholics to shy away from the Bible.◦In general, Catholics were seldom seriously encouraged by their priests and nuns to search the Scriptures.
All this changed, officially at least, at Vatican II, which dropped the Church’s 400-year-old “defensive mode of being.” Lay Catholics were now at long last given the green light to read the Bible; indeed, they were encouraged to read it. Yet today, nearly a half-century later, 44 percent of American Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, and only 7 percent read it on a daily basis. How can this be?
catholicity.com/commentary/carlin/05386.html

Not a single document from the Magisterium though has ever been provided that supports your claim that the Church forbade the reading of the Bible.

Not. A. Single. One.